He's doing pretty good as California's governor ... he's actually trying to be a moderate and counter balance the radicals in his party. I hope he doesn't try this - California doesn't need to put another unknown back into a position that could disrupt the productive balance it finally has managed to obtain.

spiderpaz:He's doing pretty good as California's governor ... he's actually trying to be a moderate and counter balance the radicals in his party. I hope he doesn't try this - California doesn't need to put another unknown back into a position that could disrupt the productive balance it finally has managed to obtain.

isn't he also older than Hillary? so the arguments against old people running for President would be a slight against his chances, no?

"Don't be surprised if California Gov. Jerry Brown runs for president in 2016," James V. Lacy, author of the newly published "Taxifornia: Liberals' Laboratory to Bankrupt America,"

Interesting title to a book since now California's government is actually solidly in the black for once. It's also the one of the few times we have had a Democrat governor for decades and also the first time we have a Democrat super majority that can pass any budget they want.

Corvus:"Don't be surprised if California Gov. Jerry Brown runs for president in 2016," James V. Lacy, author of the newly published "Taxifornia: Liberals' Laboratory to Bankrupt America,"

Interesting title to a book since now California's government is actually solidly in the black for once. It's also the one of the few times we have had a Democrat governor for decades and also the first time we have a Democrat super majority that can pass any budget they want.

1 - voter initiatives. People could pass spending without needing to come up with ways to come up with the money.2 - It took a super majority to pass a budget so Republicans would vote NO on any tax increase.3 - Republican governors who battled with the assembly instead of working with them and just coming up with borrowing schemes to balance the budget for that year.

Number 2 and 3 is now gone with a Democrat super majority and Jerry Brown and for the first time in decades California is on solid footing.

The governor's budget proposal for the 2014-15 fiscal year dedicates $11 billion to paying down debts and liabilities, including $6 billion in payments that had been deferred to schools and nearly $4 billion to pay down the so-called economic recovery bonds left over from the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

1 - voter initiatives. People could pass spending without needing to come up with ways to come up with the money.2 - It took a super majority to pass a budget so Republicans would vote NO on any tax increase.3 - Republican governors who battled with the assembly instead of working with them and just coming up with borrowing schemes to balance the budget for that year.

Number 2 and 3 is now gone with a Democrat super majority and Jerry Brown and for the first time in decades California is on solid footing.

You forgot the real reason, having so much money wrapped up in the housing bubble, and when that crashed so did everything else, harder in parts of California than anywhere else, leaving tax revenue at a major loss. But overcoming number 2 and 3 has been key in turning a surplus this last year.

The governor's budget proposal for the 2014-15 fiscal year dedicates $11 billion to paying down debts and liabilities, including $6 billion in payments that had been deferred to schools and nearly $4 billion to pay down the so-called economic recovery bonds left over from the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

grumpfuff:Don't worry libs. A conservatroll will be here any minute to explain why CA is actually at the worst point economically that it's ever been, because reasons.

Well not yet, but the 3 year drought if it turns to a 4-5 year drought could kill the state and hard. And with the water bond being likely watered down to have any chance of passing in Nov or being punted to 2016 it is not likely to be improved in ay helpful way.

1 - voter initiatives. People could pass spending without needing to come up with ways to come up with the money.2 - It took a super majority to pass a budget so Republicans would vote NO on any tax increase.3 - Republican governors who battled with the assembly instead of working with them and just coming up with borrowing schemes to balance the budget for that year.

Number 2 and 3 is now gone with a Democrat super majority and Jerry Brown and for the first time in decades California is on solid footing.

Yeah. I can argue that:

* Long-term, having really high-ish taxes coupled with an even higher cost of living, worthless levels of infrastructure, farking NIMBY's and environmentalists blocking any attempt to fix the infrastructure, some long-term pension issues driving poorer cities into repeated bankruptcy, a giant farking list of semi-useless bureaucracies, and 34% of this country's welfare recipients is a bad idea because the weather is only so nice. And that's only partially balanced out by Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and the ports.* They're possibly farked in the next recession, because 1%-ers take bigger hits to their income than everyone else (especially since SF seems to be trying to pop Silicon Valley). Mind you, I like progressive taxes, you just have to keep that in mind. I could totally see a scenario where a recession wipes out the budget, they raise taxes (again) to keep up with it, track spending to the "new normal" during the recovery, repeat indefinitely or until Reagan rises from the grave and restores sanity (and at that point, they would truly be insane). But Jerry seems to be trying to actually use Keynesian Economics by hanging on to that surplus, so they've got that going for them.

meyerkev:* Long-term, having really high-ish taxes coupled with an even higher cost of living, worthless levels of infrastructure, farking NIMBY's and environmentalists blocking any attempt to fix the infrastructure, some long-term pension issues driving poorer cities into repeated bankruptcy, a giant farking list of semi-useless bureaucracies, and 34% of this country's welfare recipients is a bad idea because the weather is only so nice. And that's only partially balanced out by Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and the ports.* They're possibly farked in the next recession, because 1%-ers take bigger hits to their income than everyone else (especially since SF seems to be trying to pop Silicon Valley). Mind you, I like progressive taxes, you just have to keep that in mind. I could totally see a scenario where a recession wipes out the budget, they raise taxes (again) to keep up with it, track spending to the "new normal" during the recovery, repeat indefinitely or until Reagan rises from the grave and restores sanity (and at that point, they would truly be insane). But Jerry seems to be trying to actually use Keynesian Economics by hanging on to that surplus, so they've got that going for them.

but right now, they're stable.

You make it sound like Jerry Brown balanced the budget just by raising taxes. That's not even close to what was done.

The taxes he raised were very minimal and he restructured the costs of the budget to put it on solid ground. You seem not to actually know what was done in California.

President Julie Brown? I suppose she'll get the "downtown" voter demographic.

But to get some real credibility, she should pick a running mate who appeals to white suburban voters.Somebody known for her distinctive looks, who can rock a pair of fashionable glasses.Maybe she doesn't come across as the smartest person, but she offsets that with her folksy charm.Somebody who's allegedly *ahem* had relations *cough cough* with an NBA player.Somebody whose name is instantly recognized in political circles.